Trilogy-itis

[AdmiralCheez]

The Metroid Prime trilogy, at least in my opinion, somewhat falls into this, although I thought two was just about the same in quality as one. Three was worse, but not by that much. It was just different.

 

[lord.jeff]

I somewhat agree. Naughty Dog's track record in particular does this. Crash Bandicoot, Jak and Daxter and Uncharted all followed this:

First game: Very good, but nothing to write home about.
Second game: Expands on the first, extraordinary.
Third game: Rehash of the second game, still very good but a bit disappointing.

I found the third Jak game to be far better then the second, sure it didn't change up the game completely like the second game but they perfected on the gameplay. One of the main reasons games can decline like that is by that time the team's ready to move on to a new idea and are just trying to pump out one last game, either to close up a story or to fulfill a contract.

 

[krazykidd]

How come no one said dragon age2?

Dragon age 2 is not as good as the first for too many reasons for me to list , not the worst game , but pretty bad in comparaison .

Metroid prime 2. This is debatable , but personally i think that the developpers were trying too hard . Still a great game , very had and frustrating game . But imo it's the weaker of the three . But ... Don't quote me on that xD.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

...
and that's why we're never getting Episode 3.

 

[Reaper195]

In trilogies, I've always noticed that the first usually ends on a somewhat ambiguous ending, but an ending nonetheless. The second ends of a giant fuck off cliff-hanger, and the third ends the main story, but leaves a character cliff-hanger so they can make more later. Have yet to see anything deviate from this.

Off topic, but every time I see the title of this thread, I think it says "Trilogy-tits"

Same. Reminded me of recall.

 

[Kopikatsu]

How come no one said dragon age2?

Dragon age 2 is not as good as the first for too many reasons for me to list , not the worst game , but pretty bad in comparaison .

Metroid prime 2. This is debatable , but personally i think that the developpers were trying too hard . Still a great game , very had and frustrating game . But imo it's the weaker of the three . But ... Don't quote me on that xD.

Is Dragon Age 2 a trilogy? I only know about Origins and 2.

 

[endtherapture]

Hmm I kinda see where you are coming from.

I do think Gears 2 is the best Gears game for example.

However I prefer TW1 to TW2 but I think TW3, if it's made could surpass it.

 

[Yopaz]

After watching the latest Zero Punctuation, it dawned on me that the second game in a trilogy is almost unanimously the best and the third game is when they start removing features that were present in the second game as well as it just being a weaker game in general.

So! Can anyone think of more examples/trilogies that defy this/an explanation for it?

Mass Effect 2 for various reasons was a horrible game that for me killed the franchise and made me lose all interest in it. (horrid nonsense story, retcons galore, worse combat system, DLC that made the entire main story plot pointless and should have been the 2nd game instead, Cerberus, Shepard dying, Shepard being resurrected, and other more minor things)

As such your opinion the 2nd game in a trilogy is always the best is flawed as Mass Effect 2 proves.

Not always. It says 'almost unanimously'. As in, most people think it's better most of the time. I think Mass Effect 2 was critically acclaimed.

Besides, Mass Effect 3 isn't out yet. Who knows, you might hate 3 so much that your head explodes.

1. Fair enough.

2. Most review sites are bogus and seemingly have developers paying them for good reviews. I rarely trust review scores as many horrid games. (ME2, Final Fantasy 13, Call of Duty, etc.)

3. As said ME2 killed all interest I had in the franchise. I will not get 3 as such it matters not how bad it is. Besides from the news it looks like the combat has gone to the point of making it kinda a Gears clone. That does not impress me. As for the story and if there will be lots of retcons obviously I won't know of them until the game is released but it matters not as the combat being horrid will keep me away. Had I knwon ahead of time Mass Effect 2 had gone down the road it did with the combat I would not have gotten it.
Besides even if it had been a good game the recent BS pulled by EA (SOPA support, Orgin, unfair Orgin bans) have made me boycott them and I will not buy any of there products ever again. And this is coming from someone who was playing the Mass Effect games on console and thereby would not have to deal with Orgin myself. Despite not having to use it I find it so appalling I just can not in good faith give them my money.

4. In the end I have to give Mass Effect 2 credit for 1 good thing it did. It taught me to never ever ever ever preorder a game. I since then and forever more will wait a few weeks to a couple months to hear all about the game's mechanics and story summary before determining if I should buy it.

Yeah, all game reviewers lie about mass Effect 2. In fact all fans of the series who think Mass Effect 2 is better are paid to say good things about it. There's not one single person alive who actually likes Mass Effect 2.

 

[Sparrow]

I don't know about that. A lot of trilogies just tend to be rather strong throughout, like Gears Of War and God of War. Regardless of what you think of either it can't really be said that the games got worst every time a new part of the trilogy was released.

After watching the latest Zero Punctuation, it dawned on me that the second game in a trilogy is almost unanimously the best and the third game is when they start removing features that were present in the second game as well as it just being a weaker game in general.

Ah, but, fuck everything Yahtzee says. Seriously, the amount of times he is outright wrong about stuff is beyond ridiculous. For instance, this week he said there are no intro scenes for the optional missions in SR3. There are optional missions Yahtzee, you dipshit, and I can't believe you just got paid to say something that's completely wrong. Also, whilst I do admittedly have a few irks about it, Saints Row 3 has improved upon almost everything SR2 did.

 

[nbamaniac]

This clearly doesn't apply to the Star Wars prequel monstrosity. (Revenge of the Sith was quite good though, but that's just due to me choking myself to remind that I should like it.)

-snip-

Congratulations on learning something. *activates party-poppers*

 

[JoJo]

Personally I think a better rule that applies to most series is that the first one is usually either very good or the best, then with each following installment the risk increases of the series turning to crap. Applies less to games really since they don't rely on story so much and can improve on mechanics and technology usage with each release but there are very few examples of television, book or film series that can maintain the same quality beyond about three installments.

 

[krazykidd]

How come no one said dragon age2?

Dragon age 2 is not as good as the first for too many reasons for me to list , not the worst game , but pretty bad in comparaison .

Metroid prime 2. This is debatable , but personally i think that the developpers were trying too hard . Still a great game , very had and frustrating game . But imo it's the weaker of the three . But ... Don't quote me on that xD.

Is Dragon Age 2 a trilogy? I only know about Origins and 2.

The tirth one hasn't been released yet is all . Just like the people saying mass effect 2 :/. The story just isn't finished .

 

[NLS]

But, what about Modern Warfare 2?

 

[Monkey lord]

I do se your point but I do not agre I thank that the prince of persia sands of time is the best game in the prince of persia trilogy and that the second and third games stand pretty equal

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

After watching the latest Zero Punctuation, it dawned on me that the second game in a trilogy is almost unanimously the best and the third game is when they start removing features that were present in the second game as well as it just being a weaker game in general.

So! Can anyone think of more examples/trilogies that defy this/an explanation for it?

Mass Effect 2 for various reasons was a horrible game that for me killed the franchise and made me lose all interest in it. (horrid nonsense story, retcons galore, worse combat system, DLC that made the entire main story plot pointless and should have been the 2nd game instead, Cerberus, Shepard dying, Shepard being resurrected, and other more minor things)

As such your opinion the 2nd game in a trilogy is always the best is flawed as Mass Effect 2 proves.

I don't know if you are let write in full red on other forums but just to let you know it might be something to check out as I am fairly sure that counts as bbcode abuse here or something like that. It might be an old rule but something to check out with a mod.

Anyway no that does not always hold true just because it does for some things does not mean it does for every. For starters this is all mostly opinions and I thought that Halo 2 and 3 were both more or less equal in their mehness as games while Halo 1 is overall the superior game. the sequel improved some aspects but then regressed in others. Lord of The Rings stayed solid for all movies and books with the games being more or less equal as well.

I thought the Second Matrix movie was crap and the first two were good. Crash 1 was good and then I thought that 2 and 3 were on equal terms with 3 being a bit better with no shitty bees. Before I forget I thought Kingdom Hearts 2 was a resounding meh compared to the first but just to say it improve some aspects and failed in others.

Now I know I used movies as examples too but from what I know every tends to like the first and last and dislike the middle entry but even that does not hold true as you are trying to apply a general rule to a subjective matter. It won't ever work or hold true.

Also you did say in another thread you considered yourself a successful inciter of flames(sounds a nice way to put it) of the Escapist so I have wonder about the validity of bring up a little mock rule to discuss on a subjective matter.

 

[Airsoftslayer93]

I personally believe that fable 2 was the best in the series. and so was battlefield 2.

 

[WaderiAAA]

The first one that springs to mind is the Super Mario Bros games for NES (if you count those as a trilogy) with the second one being the weakest and the third one being the best.

Isn't Earthbound the third game in the Mother series as well?

In general, I think the issue is that towards the end of the development cycle developers come up with ideas that they just don't have time to put in the game and after completing a game they think of stuff they should have put in there. So in the second game they polish the controls etc, get their good ideas in and often just nails it.

Then they have very few ideas left, but they have to make a third game because it is a licence to print money. Or, as with Saints Row 3 they just get carried away trying to put all the good stuff in that people praise in forums and forget all the other stuff that is still very important in a game.

 

[Yopaz]

Yeah, all game reviewers lie about mass Effect 2. In fact all fans of the series who think Mass Effect 2 is better are paid to say good things about it. There's not one single person alive who actually likes Mass Effect 2.

Last I checked my post said MOST not ALL.

So 90% of the reviewers who give it good ratings can't be trusted, but the remaining 10% that give it good reviews can be trusted?

 

[James Mann]

Hm... Lets go a bit retro to figure this out:~

Crash 1: Good, Crash 2: Better, Crash 3: Still good. Crash Team Racing: Best...

Well thats no good...

Spyro 1: Good, Spyro 2: Better, Spyro 3: Still Good, every spyro since: Awful.

Thats a bit better...

MOVIES! (we not retro no more btw guys)

Terminator 1: Brilliant, Terminator 2: Worst, Terminator 3: Infinitaly better than 2, not as good as 1. Terminator 4: still not as good, but nice to see arnie got buff again to cameo.

Matrix 1: Good, Matrix 2: Urgh, Matrix 3: OH GOD KILL ME.

Evil Dead 1: Brilliantly Ridiculous. Evil Dead 2: Same. Army of Darkness: Oh god this is awesome.

X-Men 1: Yeah that was good, X-Men 2: Yeah, that was better. X-Men 3: Yeah, that was not good. X-Men Origins: Wolverine: Losing Hope, (HOW COULD YOU DO THAT TO DEADPOOL). X-Men Origins: First Class: "Oh damn thats good"

Ace Ventura 1: Hilarious. Ace Ventura 2: More Hilarious. Ace Ventura (that kid one): You sons of bitches... im gonna kill em i am.

Back to GAMES!

Prince of persia: 1=Good, 2=Bad, 3=Worst.
Age of Empires: 1=Great, 2=Good, 3=Notsogood.
Sims 1=Good(then more good and more good), 2=(whered all my stuff go? then more good and gooderer) 3=(omg what am i meant to do with this? theres nothing!? then better and better, then where the frick is my werewolves?)

Okay. I think thats enough.

 

[DirgeNovak]

I somewhat agree. Naughty Dog's track record in particular does this. Crash Bandicoot, Jak and Daxter and Uncharted all followed this:

First game: Very good, but nothing to write home about.
Second game: Expands on the first, extraordinary.
Third game: Rehash of the second game, still very good but a bit disappointing.

[opinion incoming, no offense intended]

I disagree strongly on Crash and Jak. *snipped for space*

I found the third Jak game to be far better then the second, sure it didn't change up the game completely like the second game but they perfected on the gameplay. One of the main reasons games can decline like that is by that time the team's ready to move on to a new idea and are just trying to pump out one last game, either to close up a story or to fulfill a contract.

I'll expand on my position a bit:[sub]yeah, a lot, in retrospect...[/sub]
Crash Bandicoot 2 took the first game and perfected it. Warped took Crash 2, kept everything that worked without changing it (which is a very good thing), but then added a lot of unnecessary shit that wasn't really much fun: poorly balanced motorbike races, boring plane sequences, and that jetski thing. That didn't make the game bad by any stretch of the word, but since the platforming is top-notch even by today's standards, those seven annoying levels - especially the three races, which were absolutely terrible and obnoxious - that's over 20% of the game, may I remind you, bring the whole package down for me. That's why I enjoy replaying through Crash 2 a lot more than replaying Crash 3, even if the platforming levels and bosses are better in Warped.

Jak 3 has basically the same problem: Jak 2 was amazing, and my absolute favorite PS2-era game. Jak 3 was also great, but again, they added a lot of stuff that just didn't work. The Pac-Man minigame in Vin's lab, the fucking annoying gun courses and the rocket-riding Daxter sequence that lasted far too long spring to mind immediately even though it's been two years since I played that game. I found those things even more annoying than Jak 2's most insanely difficult missions, because those were at least fun. So it's still the same problem: ND strayed from what they did best - i.e. platforming and action - for gimmicky mini-games that ruined the flow of the game.

Both are still very good. I replayed through the Crash Bandicoot trilogy (for there are only three Crash Bandicoot games, no matter what anyone else says) just last month, and I can't wait to replay the J&D trilogy when I loot my parents' house for my old copies and/or when the HD collection comes out.